Who Believes in the Unity of the Church?

[Andreas_Hofer]

1. As other people noted previously, a person becomes Catholic when baptized Catholic and does not cease to be Catholic until they formally apostatize.

But if you contend that one ceases to be Catholic upon apostatizing, why not also upon entering into heresy or schism, which also separate one from the Church? An apostate is just as baptized as a heretic or schismatic - he doesn’t lose the baptism he is abandoning.

1. A Catholic who rejects defined dogmas is a heretical Catholic. A Catholic who rejects Church teachings that haven’t been formally defined is a dissenting Catholic but not a heretic.

There does seem to be a division of opinion as to whether a dogma must be formally defined in order to give rise to heresy, but I simply don’t think one can say it must. Heresy is obstinate doubt or denial of a truth that must be held with divine faith. What has been taught infallibly would seem to fall into this category, would it not? But the Church can teach infallibly without positing a formal act, as *Lumen Gentium *teaches:
(LG 25)Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.

So if one rejects something that has been taught infallibly in this manner, despite the lack of a formal definition, I hold that one can be a heretic.

1. A Catholic who rejects the Church’s moral teaching that abortion is sinful is in dissent and in serious error, but is not committing heresy or apostasy.

Whence comes the trouble with this assertion, for the evil of abortion most certainly has always, everywhere, and univocally been taught by the Church, meaning that its immorality has been infallibly declared by the universal magisterium.

1. It is usually bad to dissent, but not always. A good example is limbo. Not long ago, it was dissenting against Church teaching to disbelieve in limbo. Now it is dissenting against Church teaching to insist on limbo. A moral example is usury. A few hundred years ago, the Church considered taking any interest whatsoever to be gravely sinful, and to reject that moral teaching would have been serious dissent (and, even though the person rejecting that teaching was right, to go ahead and take interest probably still would have been a sin of scandal).

Problem: the Church has never taught that limbo existed, and she has not now ceased teaching what she never taught to begin with (nor has she formally repudiated the notion of limbo). So one could not previously nor now dissent from that teaching.

Interest, on the other hand, is perhaps a decent example, though I think the issue is far more complicated than many give it credit for (i.e., as I read it, the change resulted not from a different opinion about the sources, etc., but from new economic realities that altered the perceived nature of interest).

1. A Catholic may reject Church teachings that haven’t been formally defined, but only after long, careful, full, fairminded study of the issue. To reject a teaching for reasons like “It just seems wrong to me” or “I can’t understand it” or “That’s not what I read” would be grossly negligent and a sin. Due to this requirement for a well-formed conscience, when you come across a dissenting Catholic, you’re probably better off assuming they haven’t put in the study and made an informed critical decision, and you should feel free to inquire after their reasons!

Same problem with definition, but here I substantively agree with you that there is a category of legitimate dissent. One is bound to give religious assent of mind and will to the teachings of the ordinary magisterium (specifically the ordinary papal magisterium), and yet so long as these are not infallibly defined one need not give assent of faith. Thus if, after long, careful study and discernment one feels that, for instance, a teaching found in only one encyclical is flawed in some respect one could legitimately dissent - though I believe the received opinion is that one may not openly air disputes over these sorts of questions (you can privately disagree, but keep it to yourself!).

 

[bobzills]

Do Catholics have to believe that artificial birth control is wrong? If so, then how come a commission of Catholics set up by Pope Paul VI said that the teaching should be changed?
Also, if Catholics are supposed to believe that it is wrong to vote pro-choice, how come a Roman Catholic priest in good standing, Father Drinan, was the most pro-abortion Congressman ever in the history of the USA?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Your understanding of the analogy runs directly contrary to Bellarmine’s explanation. … Instead he is saying that heresy places one outside of the Church, and that those outside of the Church are not Catholics.

Do you understand the problems and contradictions that this definition introduces into Catholic theology. Not least is the fact that the accusation of heresy becomes self-invalidating.

 

[selylidne]

… But the Church can teach infallibly without positing a formal act…
Whence comes the trouble with this assertion, for the evil of abortion most certainly has always, everywhere, and univocally been taught by the Church, meaning that its immorality has been infallibly declared by the universal magisterium.

Ah, good point. However, it is very difficult to prove that anything is a part of the faith without a formal definition, simply because the only way to do it otherwise is to show that something has been always, everywhere taught by the Church. Given that there has been dissent, how few and far between, or how recent, do the dissenters have to be? If we take the “always, everywhere” literally, then any dissent would remove the possibility of using the ordinary universal magisterium. Are there any authoritative statements or good reasons to resolve this?

Problem: the Church has never taught that limbo existed, and she has not now ceased teaching what she never taught to begin with (nor has she formally repudiated the notion of limbo). So one could not previously nor now dissent from that teaching.

Uh, are you saying this as one who has studied the history thoroughly and wishes to offer a revisionist view, or as the type of religious conservative one sometimes runs into who insists that the Church has not made any teaching mistakes?

1917 Catholic Encyclopedia on limbo: newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the “children’s limbo.”

And it quotes many authorities in detail on the subject.

Peace,
-G

 

[LUISV]

Who believes that all Catholics must believe exactly the same way and have the exact same beliefs?
This, in order to actually be Catholic.

I will be flamed for this!
To be Catholic: Be able to in true faith recite the Nicene Creed and be a babtized member of a Catholic Church. Church defined as being one that can prove true Apostolic Succession and has not lost it by falling into true heresy or apostacy. As our Anglican brothers were forced to under Henry VIII. And more recently by allowing its more radical clergy to disgrace tradition and apostolic mandate by openly ordaining women. Our Christiology may differ somantically but the essence of Jesus as God will never waiver. Our Theology may change over time as human reason tries to undertand the nature of God’s will. Our politics will change as nationalism and patriotism overshadow the unity inherent in the Church. But we are all still Catholic.
Yes you can be Catholic and not have the same beliefs. Understand that if you choose to align yourself with Rome, you must accept the teachings of the Magisterium. That is what it means to be a Roman Catholic in communion with the Pope.
In time, and from what I’ve seen in recent months, in the not to distant future, there may be a normalization in the works between Rome and Constantinople. The schism of 1054 was always more about bad politics than any theological disagreement. If bruised egos and a millenium of hate mogengering from both side can be healed, we may just become whole in my life time.

 

[LUISV]

Do Catholics have to believe that artificial birth control is wrong? If so, then how come a commission of Catholics set up by Pope Paul VI said that the teaching should be changed?
Also, if Catholics are supposed to believe that it is wrong to vote pro-choice, how come a Roman Catholic priest in good standing, Father Drinan, was the most pro-abortion Congressman ever in the history of the USA?

Theology is human reason trying to understand the will of God. Sometimes we don’t get it right. Therin lies the reality of revision. What PaulVI did was correct. A question was put forth that has enough support among the clergy, it is in the interest of his office to investigate. The Church is not blind to the world. As our knowledge of creation grows so must our attempts to understand it in light of God’s will.
As to Mr. Drinan. A priest in good standing would be ministering to his parish not running for office. The theology of liberation was a big hit in the 70’s and had a lot of priests wanting to get into politics. Well that is not how Rome works. Those ideas have been sensured by the vatican for good reason. It the Church, as a sovereign state, seeks to stretch is political muscle on foreign soil what is to keep that country from doing likewise or worse to Rome.

 

[bobzills]

Theology is human reason trying to understand the will of God. Sometimes we don’t get it right. Therin lies the reality of revision. What PaulVI did was correct. A question was put forth that has enough support among the clergy, it is in the interest of his office to investigate. The Church is not blind to the world. As our knowledge of creation grows so must our attempts to understand it in light of God’s will.
As to Mr. Drinan. A priest in good standing would be ministering to his parish not running for office. The theology of liberation was a big hit in the 70’s and had a lot of priests wanting to get into politics. Well that is not how Rome works. Those ideas have been sensured by the vatican for good reason. It the Church, as a sovereign state, seeks to stretch is political muscle on foreign soil what is to keep that country from doing likewise or worse to Rome.

But the question concerns unity in the Church? for example, is there unity in the Church on the issue of marriage annulments? The Pope has just lifted the excommunications of four bishops. But it is my understanding that the SSPX does not give a carte blanche recognition of the marriage annulments which have been granted by the Church tribunals. So that means that according to some Catholic bishops, a given couple is still married, whereas according to another, a given couple is not married. How can this be unity if one group in the Church says that a couple is married, whereas another group say that the couple is not married? Further clouding the issue is the problem that the marriages performed by the unexcommunicated SSPX are not recognised by many in the Church as valid. So it looks like you have the same disunity here on the question of who is and who is not actually married?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Do Catholics have to believe that artificial birth control is wrong? If so, then how come a commission of Catholics set up by Pope Paul VI said that the teaching should be changed?
Also, if Catholics are supposed to believe that it is wrong to vote pro-choice, how come a Roman Catholic priest in good standing, Father Drinan, was the most pro-abortion Congressman ever in the history of the USA?

But the question concerns unity in the Church? for example, is there unity in the Church on the issue of marriage annulments? The Pope has just lifted the excommunications of four bishops. But it is my understanding that the SSPX does not give a carte blanche recognition of the marriage annulments which have been granted by the Church tribunals. So that means that according to some Catholic bishops, a given couple is still married, whereas according to another, a given couple is not married. How can this be unity if one group in the Church says that a couple is married, whereas another group say that the couple is not married? Further clouding the issue is the problem that the marriages performed by the unexcommunicated SSPX are not recognised by many in the Church as valid. So it looks like you have the same disunity here on the question of who is and who is not actually married?

Ultimately, the Roman Rota will decide who is married and everyone will have to live with it. But you’re confused about the reconciliation of the SSPX. The bishops were restored to communion, but remain suspended - thus they have no canonical mandate and no jurisdiction within the Church. The Society as a whole also remains suspended, and part of their reconciliation will include abiding by the decisions of those with authority over them. Furthermore, all parties agree on the sacramentology behind matrimony - the matter of faith; they disagree on the matter of fact as to who has (emergency) faculties required by that sacramentology for a valid marriage.

 

[LUISV]

So it looks like you have the same disunity here on the question of who is and who is not actually married?

No really. There may be disagreement but that does not change the Catholic nature of these Bishops. A Bishop by his very ordination has the authority to set policy for his flock. If that policy is to preach against annulments then let him. It is tradition that all RC bishops fall into unity with the Vatican on all matters. But they do have the right to dissent on matters of canon law. Dissent does not mean to disobey it means to have an opinion against. The SSPX bishops are welcome to their opinions. If they are to return to full normal satus then they will obey the norms of Rome. If a council is called then they can put their opinions to the vote and mabey get their way.

Mabey its time the whole Church came together in a binding council to iron out relations and bring closure to the Oriental, East-West and Western schisms. Well, we may not get the Protesants back but a good many Anglicans are having trouble justifying the division.
Lets see:

1. Rome needs to stop calling the Orthodox a “sister” church.
2. Constantinople needs to recognize Rome as Orthodox.
3. Both Orthodox and Latins need to accept the Orientals as is. The Christiological argument is closed. Jesus is God.
4. Every one needs to get it straight, The latin Credo is a transliteration and the filique is proper and orthodox in meaning to the original Greek.
5. Liturgically the Church has always been vibrant. We follow our bishop. Rites and Uses are just community expressions of the same liturgy.
6. Political divisions will always exist. Accept is each other’s clergy as universal citizens within the Church. As it was in the begining. Any bishop from any rite is a bishop in every rite.
7. Give the Anglicans a break. Some of them are more traditional Catholics that we here. Invite the ones that want to return to the Church to come back. No harm no foul. Grant them back Apostolic Succession and leave them instated. They will bring their communities with them. I don’t see crime in having an autocephalous Church of England with the Patiarch of Canterbury as its head? hmmmm.
8. Ditto for the Old Catholics of Utrecht.
9. Everyone, including the Pope of Rome needs to get of their high horse and accept the decisions of such a council.

I think my rant is done.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Ah, good point. However, it is very difficult to prove that anything is a part of the faith without a formal definition, simply because the only way to do it otherwise is to show that something has been always, everywhere taught by the Church. Given that there has been dissent, how few and far between, or how recent, do the dissenters have to be? If we take the “always, everywhere” literally, then any dissent would remove the possibility of using the ordinary universal magisterium. Are there any authoritative statements or good reasons to resolve this?

I have no wish to deny the difficulty of applying the principle, but I would be hard pressed to justify rejecting it, not only because of Vatican II but also because the idea is attested throughout Catholic history, even in the rate at which innovators were excommunicated, deposed, etc. as heretics by early regional councils and synods before we ever had an exercise of what we now call the extraordinary magisterium. I think to navigate the morass we can’t create a calculus, then, but can only run with rules of thumb - and leave the punishment for heresy to those with authority to mete it out.

Uh, are you saying this as one who has studied the history thoroughly and wishes to offer a revisionist view, or as the type of religious conservative one sometimes runs into who insists that the Church has not made any teaching mistakes?

1917 Catholic Encyclopedia on limbo: newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the “children’s limbo.”

I don’t think it’s nutty to differentiate what you have yourself presented as “speculation” from the “teaching” of the Church. Theology is a speculative science, and not all of its conclusions are imposed upon the faithful as soon as consensus begins to emerge. The CE article tracks a history of speculation in which the minority Augustinian position actually held “undisputed supremacy” for half a millenium, and the only time beliefs were imposed it was either Carthage - which, though regional, condemned limbo - or Florence, which does not positively defend limbo and on its face supplies ammo to the Augustinian party (yes, the contextualization gives another possible reading). Most importantly, though, the CE article says that at Florence the topic was “one which was recognized at the time as being open to free discussion and continued to be so regarded by theologians for several centuries afterwards”. That seems like a pretty faint assertion that “the Church had a teaching on the subject.”

 

[bobzills]

No really. There may be disagreement but that does not change the Catholic nature of these Bishops. A Bishop by his very ordination has the authority to set policy for his flock. If that policy is to preach against annulments then let him. It is tradition that all RC bishops fall into unity with the Vatican on all matters. But they do have the right to dissent on matters of canon law. Dissent does not mean to disobey it means to have an opinion against. The SSPX bishops are welcome to their opinions. If they are to return to full normal satus then they will obey the norms of Rome. If a council is called then they can put their opinions to the vote and mabey get their way.

Mabey its time the whole Church came together in a binding council to iron out relations and bring closure to the Oriental, East-West and Western schisms. Well, we may not get the Protesants back but a good many Anglicans are having trouble justifying the division.
Lets see:

1. Rome needs to stop calling the Orthodox a “sister” church.
2. Constantinople needs to recognize Rome as Orthodox.
3. Both Orthodox and Latins need to accept the Orientals as is. The Christiological argument is closed. Jesus is God.
4. Every one needs to get it straight, The latin Credo is a transliteration and the filique is proper and orthodox in meaning to the original Greek.
5. Liturgically the Church has always been vibrant. We follow our bishop. Rites and Uses are just community expressions of the same liturgy.
6. Political divisions will always exist. Accept is each other’s clergy as universal citizens within the Church. As it was in the begining. Any bishop from any rite is a bishop in every rite.
7. Give the Anglicans a break. Some of them are more traditional Catholics that we here. Invite the ones that want to return to the Church to come back. No harm no foul. Grant them back Apostolic Succession and leave them instated. They will bring their communities with them. I don’t see crime in having an autocephalous Church of England with the Patiarch of Canterbury as its head? hmmmm.
8. Ditto for the Old Catholics of Utrecht.
9. Everyone, including the Pope of Rome needs to get of their high horse and accept the decisions of such a council.

I think my rant is done.

Except that the Orthodox, for the most part, do not accept the filioque.

 

[bobzills]

… they disagree on the matter of fact as to who has (emergency) faculties required by that sacramentology for a valid marriage.

So there is disunity on the point of which couple is married and which couple is not?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

So there is disunity on the point of which couple is married and which couple is not?

Yes. It’s a shame, a very bad situation. But why should that threaten the unity of the faith - is Bob’s marriage proposed de fide?

 

[selylidne]

I don’t think it’s nutty to differentiate what you have yourself presented as “speculation” from the “teaching” of the Church.

The bit quoted above was followed by a review of the history, showing conclusively that the teaching was never officially imposed. Even so, we were discussing it in context of the Ordinary Magisterium and that majority of Catholic teachings which are not officially defined and imposed. I wish to note that the “speculation” you referenced was the origin of the teaching, but that nevertheless it plainly was taught by many faithful Catholic clergy and believed by many faithful Catholics, and is best considered an informal (likely incorrect, and definitely not part of Apostolic Tradition) teaching. So I’ve been told by all the elderly Catholics who have spoken to me on the subject, and so I have seen attested to in all documents about it, including the CE.
CE:

The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the “children’s limbo.”

This, and also the history you mentioned, illustrate that it is not a simple task to apply the undoubtably real charism of the Ordinary Magisterium, as you stated in your post above, and I agree.

 

[LUISV]

Except that the Orthodox, for the most part, do not accept the filioque.

And they should not. Its somantic. The filioque does not exist. It is a construct of transliteration. And therein lies the problem. The transliteration was made to more closely define the meaning of the creed and better counter the Arian Heresy. But it is a byproduct. For us Latin rite Catholics its use is now from immemorial time and we won’t change the Latin version we now have. But we also do not add the filioque to the Greek original when we encounter it since that will truely violate the council.
English translations are made from the Latin so we’re stuck with it.
If all Catholics can curb their genetic memory of what was for centuries an non-issue then the true cause of the “Great Schism” can be dealt with.

 

[bobzills]

And they should not. Its somantic. The filioque does not exist. It is a construct of transliteration. And therein lies the problem. The transliteration was made to more closely define the meaning of the creed and better counter the Arian Heresy. But it is a byproduct. For us Latin rite Catholics its use is now from immemorial time and we won’t change the Latin version we now have. But we also do not add the filioque to the Greek original when we encounter it since that will truely violate the council.
English translations are made from the Latin so we’re stuck with it.
If all Catholics can curb their genetic memory of what was for centuries an non-issue then the true cause of the “Great Schism” can be dealt with.

It is not that easily dismissed, since the Orthodox say that the filioque is a heresy.

 

[bobzills]

Yes. It’s a shame, a very bad situation. But why should that threaten the unity of the faith - is Bob’s marriage proposed de fide?

I read that Father Doherty has quoted a tribunal official as saying that “There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.” Then how can there be any unity when any marriage can be declared invalid according to a tribunal official?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I read that Father Doherty has quoted a tribunal official as saying that “There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.” Then how can there be any unity when any marriage can be declared invalid according to a tribunal official?

Just don’t call it “divorce” and everything will be a-ok.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I read that Father Doherty has quoted a tribunal official as saying that “There is no marriage which, given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.” Then how can there be any unity when any marriage can be declared invalid according to a tribunal official?

How? Tribunal officials can err, and they can sin. Seriously, what’s with the fixation on individual marriages as constitutive of Catholic unity?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The bit quoted above was followed by a review of the history, showing conclusively that the teaching was never officially imposed. Even so, we were discussing it in context of the Ordinary Magisterium and that majority of Catholic teachings which are not officially defined and imposed. I wish to note that the “speculation” you referenced was the origin of the teaching, but that nevertheless it plainly was taught by many faithful Catholic clergy and believed by many faithful Catholics, and is best considered an informal (likely incorrect, and definitely not part of Apostolic Tradition) teaching. So I’ve been told by all the elderly Catholics who have spoken to me on the subject, and so I have seen attested to in all documents about it, including the CE.

This, and also the history you mentioned, illustrate that it is not a simple task to apply the undoubtably real charism of the Ordinary Magisterium, as you stated in your post above, and I agree.

I thought I was being challenged to defend the fact that limbo (of infants) was never a teaching of the Catholic Church, since you seemed to imply I must be some odd sort of Catholic to hold that view. It seems from the above, however, that we are actually in agreement that the Catholic Church has never taught limbo (Ieaving open the question of whether bishops or priests gave that impression in their sermonizing and catechesis). We also seem to be in agreement that though discerning the (universal) Ordinary Magisterium can be complicated, it nevertheless exercises a real charism.

With that groundwork, I propose the following:

1. We cannot completely disregard the Ordinary Magisterium, and thus we must assert that, at least in principle, it is possible to be a heretic by obstinately doubting or denying a truth proposed by that Ordinary Magisterium for our belief.
2. This question is in need of some magisterial clarification so as to allow for better conscience formation among individual Catholics, many of whom are under the impression that apart from acts of the Extraordinary Magisterium they are (basically) free to believe what they wish (provided they have “studied” the issue or “struggled” with it for a bit).
3. While awaiting that clarification, we ought to be able to at least create a sliding scale of probability that something has been proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium, which off the top of my head might involve a combination of factors such as:

a) attestation in manifestly magisterial acts - those of the ordinary papal magisterium and earlier regional synods (this itself leaves some room for ambiguity as we have left the era of the synod - today’s episcopal conferences have no magisterium, and I’m not sure if we could p(name removed by moderator)oint a transition). At any rate, magisterial authority means it was clearly meant by at least the individual to be taught.

b) antiquity and relative unanimity on the issue throughout time (eg. as we have seen limbo went through drastic swings in fortune through the centuries, thus placing it on the highly unlikely end of the spectrum according to this criterion)

c) relative unanimity of doctors on the issue

d) appearance in catechetical/homiletical works of theological authorities, as opposed to more academically theological works (eg. Bellarmine may have written a speculative piece on X, but do we ever find him presenting that opinion *to the faithful *as the opinion of the Church?)

Obviously with all of these, the more we find, the more confidently we could assert a teaching to be proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium. I don’t propose this as necessarily exhaustive or even sufficient, but like I said I think they might be able to point us toward greater degrees of probability. What say you?